Mahoney v. Sutphin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mahoney v. Sutphin

164 A.D. 794, 150 N.Y.S. 206, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8470

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 20, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 164 A.D. 794 (Mahoney v. Sutphin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mahoney v. Sutphin, 164 A.D. 794, 150 N.Y.S. 206, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenks, P. J.:

I think that the order is appealable in so far as we may consider the power of the County Court judge to make an order of this character. (People ex rel. Platt v. Canvassers, 74 Hun, 179-188.) I think that he had such power. (Judiciary Law [Consol. Laws, chap. 30; Laws of 1909, chap. 35], § 757.) But the order in question is not final in the sense that it determines anything. It but requires that the appellant be brought up to answer for her failure to obey certain orders of the court and to be further dealt with according to law. She is called upon for explanation. She may satisfy the court, she may convince the court that her attitude was entirely legal. I think, therefore, that the appeal save in the respect indicated is premature. (See as to the general principle, New York & N. H. R. R. Co. v. Ketchum, 3 Keyes, 24, cited in Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47 N. Y. 44, and to be read with section 1342 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Greite v. Henricks, 71 Hun, 11; Siegel v. Solomon, 92 N. Y. Supp. 238; Field v. White, 102 App. Div. 365.)

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Burr, Thomas, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.

Order of the County Court of Nassau county affirmed with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jenks, P. J.:

I think that the order is appealable in so far as we may consider the power of the County Court judge to make an order of this character. (People ex rel. Platt v. Canvassers, 74 Hun, 179-188.) I think that he had such power. (Judiciary Law [Consol. Laws, chap. 30; Laws of 1909, chap. 35], § 757.) But the order in question is not final in the sense that it determines anything. It but requires that the appellant be brought up to answer for her failure to obey certain orders of the court and to be further dealt with according to law. She is called upon for explanation. She may satisfy the court, she may convince the court that her attitude was entirely legal. I think, therefore, that the appeal save in the respect indicated is premature. (See as to the general principle, New York & N. H. R. R. Co. v. Ketchum, 3 Keyes, 24, cited in Brinkley v. Brinkley, 47 N. Y. 44, and to be read with section 1342 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Greite v. Henricks, 71 Hun, 11; Siegel v. Solomon, 92 N. Y. Supp. 238; Field v. White, 102 App. Div. 365.)

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Burr, Thomas, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.

Order of the County Court of Nassau county affirmed with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 A.D. 794, 150 N.Y.S. 206, 1914 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahoney-v-sutphin-nyappdiv-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack